Drastically, Swedish law states that having consensual sex without a condom is punishable with 2 years in prison. Or so the story goes about the 2 women ‘raped’ by Assange; even if one of them was asleep during ‘consensual intercourse’.

What really happened to the women in the Assange

‘rape’ cases — they teamed up to “rape” him actually, and one of them had blogged about how it to avenge being cheated upon.

One of the accusers (Anna) wrote a blog post in January, months before she filed her complaint with police offering seven tips on punishing a “cheating lover.”

READ THE STORY AND STATEMENTS OF THE

WOMEN TO POLICE–THEY CLAIM ASSANGE

BORED THEM SO THEY LOST INTEREST IN HIM, AS HE WAS ALWAYS READING HIS EMAIL ONLINE. I do not think he ever got really interested in any of them.

I think this is awfully ridiculous! Sweden is becoming the ‘funny bone” of the world! The girls were paid by the CIA to get him; this is a conspiracy! I don’t think Britain will take into consideration extraditing him. Especially that they bragged about it on the internet (Twitted) to each other.
Watching Julian’s fotos on his Facebook page, you can get really disgusted with the bloody and gory faces of the victims of all war; and I think he must have been facing some horrid images himself, traveling in those places. He might be suffering enough right now, in jail.
Furthermore, 850.000 people like him on Facebok.

And here is now another side of the story; the extreme right assault on Assange:

Assange Rape Case Spotlights Sweden’s Not-So-Liberal Laws

Read also: Assange on the Defensive

Posted by Rich Trzupek, another narcissist, on Dec 8th, 2010, in FrontMagazine

“Alleged sex offender and world-class narcissist Julian Assange coined a phrase to describe the practice of accepting and publishing stolen documents that puts lives in danger and threatens national security: “scientific journalism.” Having made enemies from Washington to Moscow and beyond, Assange is now in full martyr mode, portraying himself and his pals at WikiLeaks as crusaders courageously trying to make the world a better place by delivering facts into the hands of ordinary people like you and me. Here’s how Assange described his brand of “journalism” in an op-ed piece published in The Australian yesterday entitled “Don’t Shoot the Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths”: WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately? Even if we were to ignore the propriety of publishing illegally-obtained documents and the morality of putting lives at risk in the name of a twisted form of journalistic purity, Assange’s arguments still don’t hold up. Any time a journalist or a media outlet obtains information, it has to make editorial decisions about how to use that information. What stories do you highlight, and which get less attention? What context do you provide and who provides it? Where do you try to focus your audience’s attention? Like every other media outlet, WikiLeaks has to make such decisions; decisions which inevitably involve the prejudices, judgment and knowledge-base of the editors who make them. The proposition that WikiLeaks is simply a resource for those interested in the truth does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny. WikiLeaks says that it obtained more than 250,000 State Department cables, for example. Did it simply release all of those documents and allow its readers to figure out who was reporting the news accurately? Of course not. Had it done so, the deluge of information would have been too great for anyone to comprehend. Instead, WikiLeaks did what journalists do: Assange and his cronies made editorial decisions based on which cables, in their judgment, would have the most impact and create the biggest buzz. They provided trusted partners like The New York Times and The Guardian with selected cables that would create blazing headlines. They decided which cables to release at their own site and they offered commentary intended to steer their readers in a particular direction when those readers digested the contents. Assange doesn’t want his followers to judge for themselves, he rather wants them to agree with Julian Assange’s judgment and offer him a deafening round of applause. In what was perhaps the most egregious example of Assange’s editorial bias, WikiLeaks’ prejudices and duplicity were on full display in the video “Collateral Murder.” Having obtained raw video of an engagement between a US Army Apache helicopter and Iraqi insurgents, Assange didn’t simply air the raw video as received and let the viewer “judge for themselves.” Instead, as a story in The New Yorker detailed, Assange and his cronies spent hour upon hour going over the grainy black and white footage, deciding which portions to publish, which to discard and how to best explain what the edited footage they would release meant, in order to deliver the message they preferred. At no point did they consult with anyone who has been in combat, in order to understand the context of the engagement or how it would have looked to the crew of the Apache. Indeed, the title for the video they chose presupposes a conclusion. Huddled in their hideout in Iceland, the last thing Assange and his pals wanted was for viewers to evaluate the veracity of WikiLeaks’ claims. They rather put in long hours of work in order to ensure that they produced a product that would be fully consistent with their worldview. The fact that immediately after Assange urged Hillary to resign and within a week she announced that she was done with politics made Assange a bit of a hero in my eyes, but that does not make the actual motive and truth less significant. Such as; the indisputable awards bestowed upon Assange by Economist mag. (a Rothchild financial publication) and Amnesty International… and if Assange’s strings are being pulled by Soros, as is being reported by numerous credible sources, are highly crucial and revealing facts. Any information put out by credible sources with honorable intentions casts brilliant, exposing light on obscured, critical truth.”

Beware of scorned women and the CIA!

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

About Drolgalazin

Dr Olga Lazin is a UCLA graduate in History. American Constitutional and Globalization.She is a published author, and History Lecturer at UCLA. You can access and download her books at: http://www.olgalazin.com In Hard copy: Globalization is Decentralized: Easter Europe and Latin America Compared, Civic And Civil Society, Foundations And U.S. Philanthropy, published 2016 Author HOUSE, USA.
She has been teaching History at UCLA, Cal State University Dominguez Hills, Cal State University Long Beach, as well as University of Guadalajara (UDG) and University of Quintana Roo, in Mexico for over 26 years. Her specialty is History of Food, Globalization of technology, food History, and the American Constitution. As a hobby, she is practicing permaculture.
Her radio show is accessible 24 hours a day at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dr_olga_lazin
FACEBOOK: OLGA LAZIN
DROlga Lazin
Twitter; @olgamlazin
Instagram; #lazinolga
E-mail; olazin@ucla.edu

de Adrian, este pe nicaieri, ca Vida Gheza, cum se zice la noi in Maramures! Base a mai adaugat un porc la troaca; sug totii tzitza FMI, de aceea le mai trebuie 5 miliarde de Euro, dar Americanii vor fi prosti daca vor mai da imprumutul Romaniei, la astfel de lipitori sadea; nulitati.
Evantaiul de coruptii, tipuri si subtipuri:
A whole range of things that are corrupt:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ca19dca-526c-11e1-a155-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1lrwmNTfF
February 8, 2012 10:10 pm
Bulgaria and Romania warned on graft
By Stanley Pignal in Brussels
Bulgaria and Romania must take further action to combat corruption and reform their judiciary, a European Commission report released on Wednesday said, making it unlikely that either country will accede to the passport-free Schengen area in the immediate future.
The European Union’s executive arm acknowledged progress made by both governments in meeting EU standards since its last audit in July. But Bulgaria in particular was criticised for doing too little to ensure the rule of law, protect EU funds and combat organised crime.
The so-called Co-operation and Verification Mechanism was agreed as part of the countries’ accession to the EU in 2007. They track Sofia’s and Bucharest’s follow-up on commitments made to the EU in the years preceding accession.
The reports are closely watched, because they have become a proxy of their readiness to join the Schengen zone.
The Netherlands has so far vetoed the duo’s accession to the border-free area, saying that it wants to see two consecutive positive reports from the Commission before dropping its opposition.
Ben Knapen, its Europe minister, said: “Progress is visible in both countries, especially in Romania. It is a step forward, but more needs to be done.”
But the Commission’s report falls well short of the unambiguous all-clear that would help to reverse The Hague’s tough stance, which the coalition government of Mark Rutte has upheld to placate its parliamentary allies on the far right.
Some 26 of 27 EU member states and the Commission now publicly support Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession, leaving Mr Rutte having to fend off increasingly irate allies of the spurned duo at European summits.
“From our point of view, both countries meet the criteria to be Schengen members,” said a representative of the Commission, which has positively assessed Romania’s and Bulgaria’s border policing.
Officials in both Bucharest and Sofia said they welcomed the report’s acknowledgment of recent progress, and vowed to study its findings.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ca19dca-526c-11e1-a155-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1lrwmNTfF
February 8, 2012 10:10 pm
Bulgaria and Romania warned on graft
By Stanley Pignal in Brussels
Bulgaria and Romania must take further action to combat corruption and reform their judiciary, a European Commission report released on Wednesday said, making it unlikely that either country will accede to the passport-free Schengen area in the immediate future.
The European Union’s executive arm acknowledged progress made by both governments in meeting EU standards since its last audit in July. But Bulgaria in particular was criticised for doing too little to ensure the rule of law, protect EU funds and combat organised crime.
More
On this story
• Editorial comment Bucharest test
• Bulgaria and Romania excluded from Schengen
• Croatians vote Yes to join EU
On this topic
• Erdogan says French law is ‘racist’
• Global insight Turkey must clip military wings
• UK panel warns on Turkey EU membership
• Croatia wins green light for EU membership
IN Europe
• Merkel strikes Kazakh rare earth accord
• Swap deadline looms for Greek debt holders
• Ireland offers tax relief in quest for skills
• Hungarian churches left in no-man’s land
The so-called Co-operation and Verification Mechanism was agreed as part of the countries’ accession to the EU in 2007. They track Sofia’s and Bucharest’s follow-up on commitments made to the EU in the years preceding accession.
The reports are closely watched, because they have become a proxy of their readiness to join the Schengen zone.
The Netherlands has so far vetoed the duo’s accession to the border-free area, saying that it wants to see two consecutive positive reports from the Commission before dropping its opposition.
Ben Knapen, its Europe minister, said: “Progress is visible in both countries, especially in Romania. It is a step forward, but more needs to be done.”
But the Commission’s report falls well short of the unambiguous all-clear that would help to reverse The Hague’s tough stance, which the coalition government of Mark Rutte has upheld to placate its parliamentary allies on the far right.
Some 26 of 27 EU member states and the Commission now publicly support Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession, leaving Mr Rutte having to fend off increasingly irate allies of the spurned duo at European summits.
“From our point of view, both countries meet the criteria to be Schengen members,” said a representative of the Commission, which has positively assessed Romania’s and Bulgaria’s border policing.
Officials in both Bucharest and Sofia said they welcomed the report’s acknowledgment of recent progress, and vowed to study its findings.